Original Intent
Last week I had the opportunity to listen to a student debate about "gun control" (a.k.a. "victim disarmament"). For the most part, it was the same old uninspiring stuff one always hears, although at least one of the students was clever enough to bring up the idea of "original intent". Unfortunately, the student's interpretation of "original intent" was somewhat flawed, so I felt obliged to interject that the Founder's inclusion of the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights was based upon their belief that the citizens should have the means to resist oppressive government. As a friend of mine in Texas used to point out, the defense of liberty rests upon three boxes: the soap box, the ballot box, and the cartridge box. We hope not to have to resort to the last one, but it's reassuring to know that it's still an option in extreme cases.
Anyhow, the objection raised to my argument was that since the armed forces have the citizens completely outgunned, there's no real reason to think our handguns and rifles give us any real ability to resist.
I beg to differ. If there's one thing history should have taught us, it's that large armies with superior firepower only work the way they should when they're facing a similar foe. If the large army is fighting a dedicated bunch of guerillas, the whole game changes. In fact, the guerillas win just as long as they don't lose. They only have to hang on until they can get better arms (either by capturing them or by outside suppliers). Don't believe me? There are many examples, but these should suffice:
* China - Mao started out with a small army that got even smaller after the Long March.
* Russia - The Bolsheviks never won an election, and never even came close to a majority.
* Cuba - Castro started out in the mountains with a handful of men, fighting a government that was well-armed and US-backed.
* Vietnam - The Viet Minh started out in the jungle as a rag-tag force resisting French colonial rule. The rest is history.
* Iraq - I know the interventionists of the current administration won't like this one, but I think it's a clear, modern example. Despite the fact that the US forces absolutely kicked the snot out of the Iraqi army as they fought the war, you'll note that they're having a hell of a time trying to secure the peace. Motivated (perhaps even insane) individuals with home made bombs, RPGs, and anything they can scrounge, steal or improvise are extracting a heavy toll on the US military and successfully destabilizing the country and inhibiting the establishment of a stable government.
It seems to me that motivation and dedication to a cause can overcome deficiencies in weaponry - especially when the government is unpopular enough to inspire general resistance. Like so many other things in life, it's a matter of how much you want something and what you're willing to do to get it. The first American Revolution was fought by poorly armed colonists against a world-class military power, and look how that turned out.
Whether or not we as a nation have the necessary guts anymore is a totally different question. At least we still have the guns. It sure makes me sleep better at night.
Anyhow, the objection raised to my argument was that since the armed forces have the citizens completely outgunned, there's no real reason to think our handguns and rifles give us any real ability to resist.
I beg to differ. If there's one thing history should have taught us, it's that large armies with superior firepower only work the way they should when they're facing a similar foe. If the large army is fighting a dedicated bunch of guerillas, the whole game changes. In fact, the guerillas win just as long as they don't lose. They only have to hang on until they can get better arms (either by capturing them or by outside suppliers). Don't believe me? There are many examples, but these should suffice:
* China - Mao started out with a small army that got even smaller after the Long March.
* Russia - The Bolsheviks never won an election, and never even came close to a majority.
* Cuba - Castro started out in the mountains with a handful of men, fighting a government that was well-armed and US-backed.
* Vietnam - The Viet Minh started out in the jungle as a rag-tag force resisting French colonial rule. The rest is history.
* Iraq - I know the interventionists of the current administration won't like this one, but I think it's a clear, modern example. Despite the fact that the US forces absolutely kicked the snot out of the Iraqi army as they fought the war, you'll note that they're having a hell of a time trying to secure the peace. Motivated (perhaps even insane) individuals with home made bombs, RPGs, and anything they can scrounge, steal or improvise are extracting a heavy toll on the US military and successfully destabilizing the country and inhibiting the establishment of a stable government.
It seems to me that motivation and dedication to a cause can overcome deficiencies in weaponry - especially when the government is unpopular enough to inspire general resistance. Like so many other things in life, it's a matter of how much you want something and what you're willing to do to get it. The first American Revolution was fought by poorly armed colonists against a world-class military power, and look how that turned out.
Whether or not we as a nation have the necessary guts anymore is a totally different question. At least we still have the guns. It sure makes me sleep better at night.
posted by DrJDG @ 15:00
0 comments
